# C_2019004EN.01004501.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/45

---

Corrigendum to the Official Journal notice concerning Case T-531/18

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 399 of 5 November 2018
  )

(2019/C 4/57)

The Official Journal notice concerning Case T-531/18 LL-Carpenter
  v
  Commission should read as follows:

‘Action brought on 1 September 2018 — LL-Carpenter v Commission

(Case T-531/18)

(2018/C 399/60)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: LL-Carpenter s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Buřil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul Decision C(2018) 4138 final of the European Commission of 26 June 2018 in Case AT.40037 — Carpenter/Subaru rejecting, in accordance with Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (“Regulation (EC) No 1/2003”) and Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (“Regulation (EC) No 773/2004”), the applicant’s complaint pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 dated 6 September 2012 alleging infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision C(2018) 4138 final of the European Commission of 26 June 2018 in Case AT.40037 — Carpenter/Subaru rejecting, in accordance with Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (“Regulation (EC) No 1/2003”) and Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (“Regulation (EC) No 773/2004”), the applicant’s complaint pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 dated 6 September 2012 alleging infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error consisting in incorrect legal assessment and manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts.






  — | The European Commission assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the anti-competitive conduct of which the applicant was accused (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned) had been dealt with by the national economic competition authority in the Czech Republic, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 were satisfied (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error consisting in incorrect legal assessment and manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts.

—

The European Commission assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the anti-competitive conduct of which the applicant was accused (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned) had been dealt with by the national economic competition authority in the Czech Republic, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 were satisfied (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned).

| — | The European Commission did not examine thoroughly all the factual and legal circumstances communicated to it by the applicant, and for that reason assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the applicant’s written observations did not lead to a different evaluation of the complaint and that the probability that the occurrence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU would be ascertained appeared to be low, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 were satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Commission did not examine thoroughly all the factual and legal circumstances communicated to it by the applicant, and for that reason assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the applicant’s written observations did not lead to a different evaluation of the complaint and that the probability that the occurrence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU would be ascertained appeared to be low, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 were satisfied.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by procedural error consisting in the fact that the European Commission does not set out appropriate reasoning in the decision.






  — | The European Commission did not state what priorities it proceeded from in deciding that it would not carry out further investigations in the case, merely referring to the anticipated high cost of further investigations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by procedural error consisting in the fact that the European Commission does not set out appropriate reasoning in the decision.

—

The European Commission did not state what priorities it proceeded from in deciding that it would not carry out further investigations in the case, merely referring to the anticipated high cost of further investigations.

| — | The European Commission did not explain how it assessed the evidence or for what reason it did not take into consideration the factual and legal circumstances communicated to it by the applicant, or why it based its decision to reject the complaint solely on assertions taken from the written observations of the company against which the complaint was directed.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Commission did not explain how it assessed the evidence or for what reason it did not take into consideration the factual and legal circumstances communicated to it by the applicant, or why it based its decision to reject the complaint solely on assertions taken from the written observations of the company against which the complaint was directed.’

---